Did these veterans (ERIC HOLDER) brandish a weapon at someone? Did they commit a gun-related crime? Were they seen in some public forum swearing violent intent?

http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/01/31/exposed-obamas-ploy-to-disarm...


Veterans are being ATTACKED and DISARMED by a radical thug who NEVER did anything constructive for this country. Eric Holder, the top law enforcement officer of the USA, is also the TOP RADICAL THUG of the USA. He has a past. Veterans also have a past. I'll take my chances with the VETERANS WITH THE PAST. Because part of their past was defending America in the mud, snow and rain. They had to leave the comforts and stability of 'home and school', their parents, sisters and brothers and go to foreign lands to fight an enemy on their turf. They had to watch their buddies get blown to pieces. They had to hold their buddies' head in their lap while they were dying from being mortally wounded and hear the last words, "tell my wife I love her".  This has happened for generations of young men, as young as 18 years old.  This is just another chance for the leftist war-hating, anti-American racist radicals to SPIT in their faces again.

What was ERIC HOLDER doing when he was 18? Read below. Make your choice. Who would you feel more comfortable with owning a gun: A thug or an honorable man who gave sacrifices for us that we can't even imagine. It's also an attack on a physical condition that wasn't any fault of their own. I wonder how Thug Holder would have been like when he came back from the nightmares of hell? He needs to be kicked out of our top law enforcement office and tried for treason.

It's OUR TURN! We simply MUST stand up for these veterans and OURSELVES. We have been assaulted, insulted, discriminated against, called bigots and racists since Jan. 2009. And that includes MY KIDS being insulted by them also. My kids work hard and pay for the welfare BS taking place right now. This entire administration is putting our future kids and grandkids into hell. And THAT pisses ME off! Don't back down from them when they call you dirty names. Pretend you have a giant mirror directed at them - for it is THEY who are what they call us. Now, catch up on some reading about ERIC HOLDER'S past.


As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-college-sophomore-eric-holder-...

                        I attended a town hall meeting in Claremore on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 featuring Markwayne Mullin, the newly elected congressman from Oklahoma’s 2^nd District.  Some of his statements sounded strange coming from a “conservative” but one response to a question bothered me more than the rest.

 A man asked Mullin about the executive orders being used by Barack Obama to by-pass Congress, and what can be done to nullify them.  Mullin’s response was that the way to stop an EO was for the House to pass legislation nullifying the order, then send it to the Senate where Dingy Harry Reid would refuse to allow it to be heard.  And even if it could be passed by the Senate it would have to go to Obama for his signature.

Read More:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/01/mullin-disappoints-once-again/

In his “Mission Accomplished” moment, Barack Hussein Obama ended his jobs council on Thursday, January 31, 2013.

Despite the fact that more than 12 million people in the U.S. are still out of work. 

Obama’s allies will point out that when the jobs council began two years ago, unemployment was above 9 percent and has since improved to 7.8 percent.  What they conveniently overlook is that the unemployment number has shifted downwards in large part due to people who have exceeded their unemployment benefits are no longer being counted.

So, if you are a middle aged worker who has experienced long term unemployment, you have forever lost what for most people were the peak earning years of life.  A time when under normal circumstances, the opportunity to save for retirement was most feasible financially.

Instead you were drawing unemployment benefits worth less than half what you used to make.  As the result, instead of saving for retirement, you reduced your expenditures (read: standard of living) by half.

Not to mention the loss of medical, vacation, 401k and other employer provided benefits.

Then to add insult to injury, the self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite ruling class decide that the expiration of the unemployment benefits that sustained your Spartan existence means that for the purposes of their statistics, you are no longer out of work.

Even if you have honestly sought work for years and have been unsuccessful thanks to an economy crippled by their “progressive” economic policies, have used up all your personal savings and are a month or two away from living on the street.

The reality of long term unemployment is not being accurately portrayed by the Obama administration, their “progressive” political allies, or their devoted supporters within the institutionalized “progressive” left.

The economy is not growing.  Jobs are not being created.  If you are unemployed, prospects for future employment look bleak.

Their big government “stimulus” spending was devoted primarily to helping their “progressive” allies in blue states that needed the money to balance their own indebted balance sheets.

Every dollar spent on “stimulus” was obtained through a tax on the private sector.  Instead of the private sector having the money they earned to invest in growing business and creating jobs, it was sent to Washington DC, where the cost of an ever growing, bloated bureaucracy was first removed, then redistributed to those deemed fit by the same self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite ruling class that has shown through their handling of the nation’s unemployment statistics that they are far more concerned with retaining their own grip on power than truly helping the little guy.

If you have a job, thank God and pray to keep it.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/the-reality-of-long-term-unemployment/

OURROYALFAMILY

http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-michelle.jpg
 
What can you buy for $1.4 billion a year?
<http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-fami
ly-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/#ixzz27fVs2szB> You can buy the
most luxurious and costly royal presidency in history.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing,
flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according
to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal
family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in "Presidential Perks Gone Royal" that
Obama isn't the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive
trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family,
he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs
to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family
last year is the "total cost of the presidency," factoring the cost of the
"biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever," a 50 percent increase
in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One "running with the
frequency of a scheduled air line."
Perspective: $1.4 billion is equal to spending seven times Mitt Romney's
entire net-worth every year. If Romney had to pay for Barack and Michelle's
lifestyle this year, he would have been bankrupted by the third week in
February.
Now, can we please get back to talking about the evil, freeloading rich
people, who didn't build anything and who need to "pay a little bit more."
 
 

Let's write to Congress (www.congress.org or www.contactingthecongress.org)
letswritetocongress.blogspot.com
www.impeachpresidentobama.weebly.com

Dear Representative of We the People:

President Obama, in effect, appointed czars to the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ("BCFP") without the approval of the Senate, as directed by the United States Constitution, while the Senate was in session.  This action by the President was determined unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 12-1115).  In response, United States Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska has introduced a Bill entitled Restoring the Constitutional Balance of Power Act of 2013 (http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=VideoClips&ContentRecord_id=23756d62-4380-4d52-8212-fbb4c8ebc121&ContentType_id=d4f8bed8-f249-4640-b5b1-874dada9c4c8) which withholds funding without a quorum of the BCFP and until appointees to the NLRB are approved by the Senate. 

The President, as well as every public official, takes an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution (which includes all Amendments) declares that no one is above the law.  Please take all necessary steps to purge our Government of ALL unconstitutionally-appointed czars and to nullify any and all actions taken by them.  Please also investigate the legitimacy of President Obama, who is not a natural born, let alone a native born, citizen of the United States, which is a requirement for eligibility to be president under the Constitution.  Please live up to your oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  We the People are expecting it of you.

...and I joined immediately, AND I posted this on my FB page. See how long it lasts.

Now 0bama has a one stop shop for his 'enemies' list

Duke-Jinx

For me personally I find this comparison to be very `Telling': i.e., [People who SUPPORT vs. OPPOSE ....Right of

a  ountry's Citizens .... to Bear Arms] ,  for Instance:

                                                  SUPPORTED -`Right to Bear  Arms':

    1sr US Pres. George  Washington   --  Thomas Jefferson (`Father of Decl'n of Independance --

James Madison (`Father' of US Constitution)  --  Sam  Adams -(Tea Party Leader-Boston Harbor )

1st US Treasurer, Alexander  Hamilton --`Common Sense' Author,-Liberty's TOP Champion! -Thos. Pane

OPPOSED --  `Right to BEAR  ARMS'

--Adolph  HITLER, --Jos. Stalin--Fidel Castro,  -- Edie  Amin

--Fidel  Castro,  --Lenin  --B.H. Obama 

-- ### --

The majority of these  blogs all relate to what they believe the President will do - ddo all of you honestly believe that our Congress and The States are so stupid that they can't see the writing upon the wall - believe you me I feel the States' National Guard Units as well as our own Military would not turn on their own families just to make a Black President happy - you people must think that because the President says in his orders will be backed and enforced by true blooded Americans - well people I have more faith in the American Uniformed Military and the true blooded Citizens of this Country to know they will not follow (as Germans did Hitler) the stupid actions of an Islamic President let alone one that is believed to be an illegally elected President - if any of you have fears that such an action is in the near future, then everyone of you need to start writing to your Congressmenmand your Senators and express your beliefs and desires and demand they take appropriate action now to orevent such an action or to commence Impeachment procedures to remove him from office before he can enforce his 6-month suspensions - the BALL IS IN THE cOURT OF ALL OF YOU THAT BELIEVE SUCH AN ACTION IS IMMINENT - thanks for reading

The great Roman statesman, orator, and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote: "Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum."  Translated that means:  "Not to know what happened before you were born, that is to be always a boy, to be forever a child."

Read the entire short article at http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp  .

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/30/Menendez-donor-Melgen-financed-Clintons-Wasserman-Schultz-and-GOP-pols

Here we go again, folks, but this is a little different from what Conservatives are used to.  The Democratic machine is throwing one of their own under the bus or is that newsworthy?

I think it is just another Obama distraction to get bolster Obama's last opinion polls.  People are distracted by not having the money in their accounts that Obama promised them.  It was reported that 67% of Americans believe that Obama and Feinstein are clamping down on what they love so much---their guns and gun rights.

Oh heck, people will only say that I creating another conspiracy theory here...Don't mind me---move along.

The price of a college education has gone up and up and the colleges have done little to keep the cost in check.  College loans can not be removed by bankruptcy, they are with you until you pay them off unlike other loans. Many college graduates were told by the colleges that the degree  would assure them of a job that would pay enough to pay off those loans, when it has not and will not.  The bankers got bailed out and our sons and daughters are now being screwed by those same banks and by our own Government who insured those loans.

Did you know that the average college professor earns over $100,000 a year and is in the class room less than 20 hours a week.

IF I were one of those college graduates who is now facing a life of indentured servitude because of college loans and no good job prospects 1 would just tell the banks to go to hell and join the underground economy  one way or another.

Thoughts.

By IBM

The Democrat President has destroyed the economy and eliminated jobs for the Poor, The Black and the Hispanic worker.

At the same time, he is proposing to bring in 11 million more Illegal Immigrant workers to drive down Wages. Since the election of this President, the average wage in the United States has decreased and is on target to continue to decrease with added illegal immigrants.

He will also let you pay for the medical care, schooling, welfare, and other government benefits for the illegal immigrant who has broken into the United States. In many countries they would be sent to prison for that crime.

The Democrat President will reward the illegal with your job and let you pay for his needs. It is time to Impeach the Democrat President.

Write your senator and representative today and tell them you have had enough. You want him impeached now.

IBM

http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/interview-exposes-stocks-collapse/2012/09/20/id/456981?PROMO_CODE=109C0-1#v1&utm_source=taboola

POWERFUL CONSERVATIVE VOICES  |  Thursday, January 31, 2013

A Rejoinder to Senator Rubio on Illegal Immigration

Senator Marco Rubio was gracious enough to engage our conservative community with his thoughtful comments on his framework for immigration reform.  I’d like to respond to some of the points made in his post.

• “and we have by some estimates as many as 11 million human beings living in the United States without the proper immigration documents in a state of de facto amnesty.”

The first step in proposing a solution is being honest about the problem.  If someone feels that granting amnesty, or even more – full blown citizenship – to illegal immigrants is a prudent idea, then admit that is what you’re doing and be forthright about it.  By consistently using the parlance of the left – “undocumented “ -  as if it were some natural disaster, is disingenuous.

In the very first line describing the Gang of 8’s “four legislative pillars” it says their plan would “create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States…”  That means amnesty. Those words—“path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants” mean amnesty.  Again, you might feel it’s a prudent idea, but it is amnesty nonetheless.

• “On the political front, a growing number of voters of Asian and Hispanic descent have been convinced by the left that conservative opposition to immigration reform equates to being anti-immigrant. This is unfair, and it is untrue. But they have pulled it off and, as a result, our ability to convince these fast-growing communities that the principles of limited government and free enterprise are better for them than big government and collectivism has been impaired.”

I’d like to talk about sound policy, but if we are going to do this for political reasons, does Senator Rubio have any evidence to show that the new amnestied immigrants will not vote at least 80/20 Democrat?  Is there any evidence that we will enjoy a net gain with the current Latino voting population?  Remember, Democrats have signed onto this plan precisely because they believe it will create a permanent Democrat majority.  Yes, we need to articulate our message for limited government to all people.  But let’s not fool ourselves, it’s an uphill battle fighting through the allure of the dependency state.  Let’s deal with those we already have, instead of granting voting rights to millions more low-skilled immigrants, who are strongly predispositioned  to vote Democrat, irrespective of how enthusiastically we embrace a path to citizenship.

• “The economic ramifications, however, are even more serious. For example, our technology sector creates roughly 120,000 computer engineering jobs a year, but our universities only graduate about 40,000 students a year in that field. The long term answer, of course, is to get more American students to graduate in this field. But the immediate problem is that, in the absence of an immigration system where these workers can be brought here, these jobs are sent overseas to them.”

If this is truly a bipartisan concern, why don’t we fix that now?  Why do the legal immigration reforms have to be held hostage for a “comprehensive” amnesty bill?  Let’s first pass the things we all agree upon.

• “Another example is in agriculture, where a stable and affordable domestic supply of food is critical to our national security and our quality of life. Agriculture has always required a significant work force from abroad, but we do not have a system through which growers and dairies can bring a workforce legally into the U.S.”

It is true that many conservatives from heavily agriculture districts have expressed concerns that there are not enough visas granted for temporary migrant workers.  But we could solve that with a temporary worker visa program (after we implement a visa tracking system).  Instead, the framework which you signed onto would not only grant them a path to citizenship, but a fast track path along with the “Dreamers.”  That is a gratuitous and superfluous addition to the requests of those working in agriculture.

• “The principles I have proposed to deal with this issue are not perfect, but I believe they create a framework for dealing with this reality in a responsible and reasonable way. And I think conservatives have already won important concessions from Democrats that we can build on to shape the actual legislation.”

The Senator goes on to explain how we now have Democrats conceding to enforcement with triggers.  This is a concession?  Democrats said the same thing with the McCain-Kennedy bill, which was strongly opposed by then-candidate Rubio.  They will never publically say that they oppose enforcement.  All we need to do is watch their actions.  Moreover, Schumer said emphatically that there are no preconditions for an immediate legal status.  That will take place right away.  Once they are all legal, there will be no way to stop the train.  Finally, as we’ve stated before, enforcement is not a legislative problem.  All of these laws are already on the books.  It is an executive and judicial problem.  We need to see the enforcement measures actually implemented and working, along with the blessing of the courts, before we proceed to any legalization.

Had the Democrats signed onto a document charting new territory, such as a commitment to end anchor babies and allow states to enforce the laws, then there would have been a meaningful concession.  Instead, it is only our side making dramatic concessions.

• “We even got President Obama to concede that undocumented immigrants who avail themselves of this program will not be eligible for federal benefits, including Obamacare, during their lengthy non-immigrant status.”

Again, wait until the courts get ahold of this.  Also, how long is the “lengthy non-immigrant status?”  This does nothing to deal with the long-term welfare problem that will ensue from granting them green cards and citizenship.  Furthermore, how will you avoid the bidding war?  Even if Obama doesn’t move the bill to the left, Democrats will accept this only as the first step.  Once they are granted the legal status, it will be even easier for them to become a political football by making welfare and a quicker path to citizenship the next civil rights issues.

Overall, the Senator is correct in asserting that we must preemptively lay out our conservative principles on this critical issue.  However, that would require conservatives to first work amongst ourselves crafting a statement of principles as to what is acceptable on the issues of preconditions, welfare, and legal immigration.  Working together with far-left Democrats on a plan, which Senator McCain passionately believes is the original Kennedy plan, does not present the American people with a bold contrast – putting aside the Washingtonian nuances and gimmicks.  And as is the case with every other issue, we are suffering from a lack of articulation of bold contrasts.

POWERFUL CONSERVATIVE VOICES  |  Thursday, January 31, 2013

LOG OUT MY DIARY | CREATE NEW POSTSubscribe Contribute About Us

Bob Menendez’s foreign underage prostitution story stubbornly not going away.

Regardless of any truth that may be inherent, in general, referencing Hitler or comparing one's political or ideological opposite to the Nazis signals an end to any chance at continuing any kind of discourse. 

In general, this might also apply to labeling another Stalinesque.

By Oscar Y. Harward

Do Capitol Hill legislators and/or the main-stream Medias have any respect for over 600,000 American men and women who have given their lives in the Military and/or the millions who have served in defending our Constitution, our American Flag,  and our freedoms?  Someway, we must stop President Obama and Capitol Hill legislators from granting ‘freedoms to criminals’.

Now, President Obama, and the US Senate ‘Gang of Eight’ are attempting ‘freedoms for criminals’, including Sen. Robert Menendez who employed Luis Zavaleta in his Senate office; an ‘illegal immigrant’ and a registered sex offender.  The Miami Herald  reports “FBI agents late Tuesday night raided the West Palm Beach business of eye doctor Salomon Melgen, left, suspected of providing free trips and even underage Dominican prostitutes to U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. — who has denied what he calls the “fallacious allegations.””  Homeland Security instructed federal agents not to arrest Zavaleta until after Election Day.

Sen. Menendez is not being forced out or openly implied by his fellow Senate colleagues that he must resign from his US Senate office or even any Senate  Democrat Party Committee. 

The ‘Gang of Eight’ consists of Democrats Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO).  They are joined by Republicans Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Anytime Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Robert Menendez, and/or Sen. Dick Durbin are leading legislation(s), it ‘ain’t’ good for Republicans.  Their voting records will sustain this accusation.  What and why are Republicans so intense in support of the Democrat Party Platform and a disgrace to all Americans who have served and/or died to defend our Constitution, our American Flag,  and our freedoms?  Instead, support the Republican Party Platform on ‘immigration’, and nothing less.

Illegal immigrants are invaders of the USA as they purchase and/or steal an American identity; Social Security number, Driver’s License, etc., and often survive off the government for subsidized housing, food, education, healthcare, etc.; all at American taxpayers’ expense.  The USA currently has some 11 million to 12 million Latino ‘illegal immigrants’.  Some suggest another 11 million ‘illegals’ from the Middle East and North Africa, a breeding ground for ‘terrorists’.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R-AL) says, “A large-scale amnesty is likely to add trillions of dollars to the national debt over time, accelerate Medicare’s and Social Security’s slide into insolvency, and put enormous strain on our public assistance programs.”

President Obama and every Capitol Hill legislator should be asked, “Who, when, and how is our increasing ‘National Debt’ to be paid; currently approaching $16.5 trillion of debt?  Are you willing to force (y)our child(ren), (y)our grandchild(ren), and further generations to be hopelessly burdened with your created debt?”

Without a ‘stoppage’ and ‘reduction’ of our rocketing National Debt and a newer form with higher cost on ‘immigration’, President Obama and every Capitol Hill legislators are driving our policies achieving in the direction of retaining bank robbers and employing these corrupt individuals as police officers and/or bankers.

Enforce current ‘immigration’ laws first.  Law-abiding Americans welcome ‘legal immigration’.  Criminal Americans support ‘illegal immigration’.

Do not be hoodwinked allowing Liberal Democrats and RINO Republicans to grant ‘freedoms for criminals’ or other Constitutional freedoms to repetitive offenders.  Do not believe it when main-stream Medias tell you that ‘legal immigration’ is broken.  It is not!  It has been legal, fair and equal, honorable, and successful for more than 200 years.  Many elected and/or appointed officials are, themselves, violating our Constitution, US Code, and our enclosed ‘Immigration Laws”.

If ‘illegal immigrants’ love America’s freedoms so much, they will seek to obey the laws of the USA that have been so privileged by many for more than 200 years.  Legal Americans deserve our jobs and our freedoms.

Do not permit President Obama and Capitol Hill legislators to provide ‘freedoms for criminals’.

With everything happening to this country of ours it is getting harder and harder to maintain a cool head and not jump to conclusions but if we sit back and view the last four years as well as what’s happening now an image is starting to appear of what might possibly be our future.

During President Obama's first term he laid the ground work. President Obama issued over 144 executive orders, many dealing with martial law. As the Supreme Court already opinioned when looking at President Lincolns use of martial law, "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.". This means when martial law is declared we as Americans have no rights at all.

During President Obama's first term he wrote Executive Orders granting the government the power to take over all communications media, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. He also wrote an Executive Order where the government can take over all modes of transportation and control of the highways and sea ports. That means Obama can confiscate your horse, your donkeys, your bicycle or even your riding lawn mower. All forms of transportation. Executive orders signed by Obama also include railroads, inland water ways, public storage facilities, airports and airplanes including commercial planes can all be taken over by the government.

Think that’s bad, well it gets worse, much worse.

Executive Orders have also been signed allowing the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. To take over all health education and welfare functions. To allow the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations, AND grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

If that doesn’t scare you then look at this. An Executive order has also been signed which allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

Now why that last part that congress cannot review the action for six months? To understand why President Obama wanted that executive order lets look at what martial law is. Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is "under martial law," we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The president is the commander in chief of the military and as such in full control of the martial law. Seeing how the constitution is suspended during martial law and the President is in control the only ones able to stop martial law is the congress. In effect that Executive order that says Congress cannot review the action for six months in effect give the President full unchallenged control for six months.

A little tidbit to add to martial law here is that our constitution Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The concept of the of Habeas Corpus is that a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ means the government would have to provide a person to a court to show just reason for holding them. With the suspension of the writ the government can detain and hold a person indefinitely.

In a nut shell a President can declare martial law, would have six months of free reign to do as he pleases while rounding up any congressional opposition to his martial law and detaining them indefinitely and doing this totally legally.

In order for a president to declare martial law he must have a valid reason to do so. For that lets look at our present situation. Today we have a president whom has openly declared war on the second amendment to our constitution. This is causing a great deal of civil unrest in the nation. Being told that their actions are unconstitutional doesn’t slow the President down at all, in fact it emboldens him to push even harder. To top that off our President is also pushing us to the fiscal cliff of ruin. When asked about the out of control spending our President replies that we do not have a spending problem. Top that off with our government printing money as fast as possible as well as demanding unrestricted borrowing powers we can see we will be heading to a financial meltdown very soon. A financial meltdown coupled with civil unrest over constitutional violations would be the catalyst for open revolt and exactly what would be needed in order to openly declare martial law. Then we all are doomed.

Intuitively, I had always believed that the 2nd Amendment protected my inherent right to keep and bear arms for my own personal safety; that this right was derived from “natural law” irrespective of any right to same which may have been specifically granted or denied by either the United States or any of the States.

Further, I had always believed that since the federal government was not specifically granted the right to restrict my right to self-protection, that, in accordance with the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government did not have the right to in any way deny my right to self- protection; that, similarly, since the right to self-defense is an inherently natural right that no State could abridge or otherwise deny that right as well.

In light of the recent District of Columbia v Heller (2008) decision in which SCOTUS struck down DC’s handgun ban as well as its ban on loaded, operable firearms for DC residents’ self-defense and the McDonald v City of Chicago case which protected the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by local governments, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to explore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for myself.

Briefly, this is what the Heller decision said: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” and “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” However, SCOTUS tempered its decision by allowing for “prohibitions against possession of weapons by felons or the mentally ill” or “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”. In short, the Court ruled that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e. “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, serves to clarify the operative clause, i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

The first thing I discovered is that quite apart from the supercilious and intrusive world of social engineers who continually advocate a wholesale ban on privately owned guns without any allusion to constitutional justification, over the years there really has been a serious and honest difference of opinion among respected constitutional scholars as to the precise meaning of the 2nd Amendment, a difference which the Heller and McDonald decisions finally resolved for every American. While Heller has affirmatively addressed the 2nd Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms who reside within federal territories, the McDonald ruling extended that right to the local and state levels.

But, first, let’s very briefly highlight some authoritative, albeit contradictory, case law on this subject before proceeding further:

1. Barron v Baltimore (1833): held that the Bill of Rights applies directly to the federal government—not to state governments. In effect, the court ruled that states could infringe on the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government. (Don’t ask. I didn’t delve deeply into the reasoning behind this decision.)

2. Nunn v State of Georgia (1846): held that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and that “the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon in the smallest degree.”

3. Cockrum v State of Texas (1859): ruled that “the right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the ‘high powers’ delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Clearly, at some variance with Barron v Baltimore.)

4. 14th Amendment (1868): to address the possible oppression of freed slaves following the civil war and to ensure that former slaves, among other citizens, were able to Keep and Bear Arms for that purpose, Congress passed this amendment which provides that states may not “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (If you can’t get there one way, try another route.)

5. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873): held that only those “privileges and immunities” that “owe their existence” to the US Constitution were protected; thus, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states because the Bill of Rights protected basic human rights which existed before the ratification of the Constitution.

6. United States v Cruikshank (1876): clarified that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed before the Constitution but that the 2nd Amendment, indeed the 1st Amendment, were not protected from infringement by the states or by private individuals. (Here the court ignored the 14th Amendment and parroted Barron v Baltimore.)

7. Presser v Illinois (1886) and Miller v Texas (1894): held that the 2nd Amendment didn’t directly protect against infringement by the states.

8. People v Zerillo (Michigan, 1922): Ruled that “the provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”

9. Gitlow v New York (1925): ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibited states from violating some of the rights of citizens without “due process” but stopped short of “incorporating” all of the Bill of Rights at once.

10. Since Gitlow, and only on a case by case basis, courts have held that on the strength of the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Clause”, the Bill of Rights is protected against state infringement. In effect, the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause vide the generally accepted Theory of Substantive Due Process. (Note: today, the 2nd Amendment is one of the last rights in the Bill of Rights to be incorporated.)

11. District of Columbia v Heller (2008): the court ruled that the Cruikshank decision failed to properly weigh 14th Amendment protections and that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

So, though most states protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, the McDonald v City of Chicago ensured that the full force of the 2nd Amendment extended to all localities as well. Particularly in those states where there are no state constitutional safeguards, plaintiffs are especially concerned. Without 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, gun owners are at the mercy of state legislators, social engineering lobbyists and the like.

But, what’s behind the McDonald challenge? In short, the Illinois state constitution states that “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By failing to “incorporate” 14th Amendment inquiry as was required by Heller, in June 2009 the 7th Court of Appeals reaffirmed Illinois’ power to ban handguns by relying solely—and erroneously—on the Cruikshank decision of 1876, thereby ignoring nearly all other pertinent case law as well.

By contrast, earlier, in April 2009, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (Nordyke v King) in California concluded that since “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” that this right is, therefore, “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and applies to the states.” This decision was on hold awaiting a SCOTUS decision on the McDonald v City of Chicago case. Thus, we had two appellate courts and two divergent views in the same year. The earlier decision relied upon the 14th Amendment as required by Heller and the panel opinion relied upon Cruikshank which had been overruled by Heller. (How mortal jurists be?)

So, owing to the contradictory case law subsequent to the US Constitution’s adoption in 1787, I opted to simplify my inquiry by examining what our framers had to say about all this. Being the real experts, their correspondence and debates carry considerably more weight for me than do contemporary interpretations from either the left or the right.

First, the 2nd Amendment states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Like all things constitutional, context is absolutely everything, and both logic and a studious level of caution dictate that the expressed intent of the framers should always take precedence over what might be faulty subsequent interpretation. And rather than weighing and examining a dizzying array of contradictory interpretations, I have found solace by relying upon an “originalist” approach to better capture the meaning of the framers in this regard. It just seems eminently more sensible and the least painful path to follow.

Bearing in mind Thomas Jefferson’s admonishment that “on every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”, any conclusions as to the framers’ intent and, thus, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, will be left to the objectivity and integrity of the reader.

From what I have read, the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check on the standing army and any foreign armies. To wit, Noah Webster and Tench Coxe, the latter an ally and correspondent of James Madison, admonished that “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” Similarly, George Mason warned that “the colonies’ recent experience with Britain”, in which King George’s goal had been “to disarm the people…was the best way to enslave them.”

Further, it appears that the overarching purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution, was to better ensure private rights by specifically proscribing federal violations of those rights. Thus, in short, “well-regulated militia” did not at all mean Congressional regulation of that militia or, by extension, the regulation of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Also, the text of the Amendment expressly confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is retained “by the people”, and not the states. Important to note too is that whenever the word “regulate” appears within the Constitution’s text, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being regulated. However, in the 2nd Amendment the term “well regulated” describes a militia—not an army reserve or national guard--but does not define who or what regulates it. Thus, from what I could understand, the framers intended that the people comprise an essentially unorganized militia which may, of necessity, be organized and well regulated, but by the people themselves.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton (Federalist, No. 29): “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” Thus, it also appears to have been clearly intended by the framers that law-abiding armed citizens could collectively organize and train and that doing so would not necessarily pose a threat to their fellow citizens, but would, in fact, help “to ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defence”.

But, rather than further wading through a plethora of interesting, albeit esoteric, and often contradictory opinions let’s take a brief look at some notable quotes of the framers themselves to better understand their meaning and intent with respect to the 2nd Amendment. It’s just more edifying—for me anyway:

1. “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms…” Thomas Jefferson

2. “The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state…” Pennsylvania Declaration of 1776

3. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

4. “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” John Adams, 1787

5. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” James Madison, 1789

6. “…the ultimate authority…resides in the people alone.” James Madison

7. “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe, 1788

8. “The militia, when properly formed,  are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

9. “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping and bearing arms.” Samuel Adams, 1788

10. “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

11. “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton

12. “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Thomas Jefferson

13. “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

14. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference…When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” George Washington

While there are also many luminaries, like Einstein, Machiavelli, Ayn Rand, Blackstone, et. al, who celebrate the individual right to keep and bear arms, there are notable detractors as well:

1. “Gun registration is not enough; the most effective way of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian population.” Janet Reno. Atty General, 1991

2. “Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, 1994

3. “…Our ultimate goal—total control of all guns—is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal.” Nelson Shields, Handgun Control

4. “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.” Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, 1994

5. “Citizens! Turn in your weapons.” (English translation of Soviet Union poster 1919.)

FYI: Current US Code defines militia like this: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard, and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members in the militia who are not members of the National Guard.” Title 10, Section 311(a) of the United States Code.

And, finally, no discussion of the 2nd Amendment can be properly wrapped up without this incisive quote from Thomas Jefferson: “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary of trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evil, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man…”

So, there you have it. Shouldn't the Framers’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment be rendered more authoritative than the stream of conspicuously contradictory legal opinions which followed over the years? The age-old controversy. As said, for me the Framers’ clearly stated opinions as to their meaning and intent necessarily hold sway.

POSTSCRIPT:

Currently under serious assault by Progressives at both the federal and state levels, the inviolabilty of the 2nd Amendment hangs in the balance. Pushback is widespread, and already there are hundreds of Sheriffs who refuse to obey these unconstitutional infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many States have taken action to nullify federal gun control laws. Stay tuned. This could get very messy.

Call these offices to pronounce

"No path to citizenship for illegal
aliens! No Amnesty! Secure our borders now!"


LIST OF GOP SENATORS TO
CALL
(Broken links corrected)

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
455
DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web
Form: http://www.alexander.senate.gov/publ...fficeLocations

Ayotte,
Kelly - (R - NH)
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: Offices | Kelly Ayotte - United States
Senator

Barrasso, John - (R - WY)
107 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE
BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6441
Web Form: http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/in...fficeLocations

Blunt,
Roy - (R - MO)
260 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-5721
Web Form: http://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/i...fice-locations

Boozman,
John - (R - AR)
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-4843
Web Form: http://www.boozman.senate.gov/public...fice-locations

Burr,
Richard - (R - NC)
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-3154
Web Form: http://burr.senate.gov/public/index....n=Contact.Home

Chambliss,
Saxby - (R - GA)
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-3521
Web Form: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/publ...egionaloffices

Coats,
Daniel - (R - IN)
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: www.coats.senate.gov/contact/

Coburn, Tom -
(R - OK)
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-5754
Web Form: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/...?p=ContactForm

Cochran,
Thad - (R - MS)
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-5054
Web Form: Offices - Contact - Senator Thad
Cochran

Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME)
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE
BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: Email - Senator Susan
Collins

Corker, Bob - (R - TN)
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Cornyn,
John - (R - TX)
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-2934
Web Form: http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/...fficeLocations

Crapo,
Mike - (R - ID)
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-6142
Web Form: http://www.crapo.senate.gov/contact/..._locations.cfm

Cruz,
Ted - (R - TX) OPPOSES AMNESTY
B40B DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
Web Form: www.cruz.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Enzi,
Michael B. - (R - WY)
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-3424
Web Form: http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/in...l-senator-enzi

Fischer,
Deb - (R - NE)
825 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-6551
Web Form: www.fischer.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Flake,
Jeff - (R - AZ) AMNESTY SUPPORTER
B85 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: www.flake.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Graham,
Lindsey - (R - SC) AMNESTY SUPPORTER
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE
BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972
Web Form: http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/ind...fficeLocations

Grassley,
Chuck - (R - IA)
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-3744
Web Form: www.grassley.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Hatch,
Orrin G. - (R - UT)
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-5251
Web Form: www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=Email-Orrin

Heller,
Dean - (R - NV)
361A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-6244
Web Form: www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

Hoeven,
John - (R - ND)
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-2551
Web Form: http://www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/...ail-thesenator

Inhofe,
James M. - (R - OK)
205 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-4721
Web Form: http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/inde...fficeLocations

Isakson,
Johnny - (R - GA)
131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-3643
Web Form: www.isakson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me

Johanns,
Mike - (R - NE)
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public...SenatorJohanns

Johnson,
Ron - (R - WI)
386 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-5323
Web Form: www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Kirk,
Mark - (R - IL)
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-2854
Web Form: www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=contact

Lee, Mike -
(R - UT)
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-5444
Web Form: www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

McCain,
John - (R - AZ) AMNESTY SUPPORTER
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235
Web Form: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/...fficeLocations

McConnell,
Mitch - (R - KY)
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-2541
Web Form: www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact

Moran,
Jerry - (R - KS)
354 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

Murkowski,
Lisa - (R - AK)
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-6665
Web Form: www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Paul,
Rand - (R - KY) AMNESTY SUPPORTER
208 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: www.paul.senate.gov/?p=contact

Portman, Rob
- (R - OH)
338 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-3353
Web Form: http://www.portman.senate.gov/public...fice-locations

Risch,
James E. - (R - ID)
483 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-2752
Web Form: www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Roberts,
Pat - (R - KS)
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-4774
Web Form: www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailPat

Rubio,
Marco - (R - FL) AMNESTY SUPPORTER
317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
Web Form: www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Scott,
Tim - (R - SC)
113 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-6121
Web Form: www.scott.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Sessions,
Jeff - (R - AL) OPPOSES AMNESTY
326 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124
Web Form: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/publi...fficeLocations

Shelby,
Richard C. - (R - AL)
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-5744
Web Form: www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailsenatorshelby

Thune,
John - (R - SD)
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-2321
Web Form: www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Toomey,
Patrick J. - (R - PA)
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact


Vitter,
David - (R - LA)
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202)
224-4623
Web Form: http://www.vitter.senate.gov/public/...fficeLocations


Wicker,
Roger F. - (R - MS)
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC
20510
(202) 224-6253
Web Form: http://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/...fficeLocations